Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (46141)	11/1/2001 4:19:41 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

qwik sometimes you surprise me. you always seem to come to the right conclusions, it just takes you YEARS to do it. gggggggg

To: QwikSand who wrote (46141)	11/1/2001 7:44:55 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

>>If Itanium becomes real, which it now looks like it will, M$FT will own 80% of the OS on it and Linux 20% (mostly via IBM), Sun 0%. If we then extrapolate Sun's rate of execution and progress on processor development over the last 3-4 years vs. Intel's, Sun is no longer a hardware player by, say, 2005. Itanium machines will slide down a cost/performance curve that will marginalize Sun solutions, with the great majority of the benefit going to Microsoft and the rest to IBM. huhhh, you get ahold of some of my FOUR year old posts or what? gggggggggg

To: QwikSand who wrote (46141)	11/2/2001 4:15:08 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

You've made quite a few interesting points here. I'm assuming you are limiting your analysis to the home-desktop market and the office market, where Windows is still king. M$FT has been so ineffective in the server market there is no way they can be a contender with Solaris. I don't think even BG takes that market seriously anymore. And there is equally no place there for Linux either. I see IBM (AIX) and Sun (Solaris). Equally, I don't see M$FT in the storage, router, security, or telecomm arena either. It's true that INTC has the resources to eventually grind out cycles in their cpu's. It is also true that speed is important. IF you're the typical IT mgr & if it's a choice between a little more speed (%-wise) and a lot more reliability, availability, and service, which way do you go. What's the best way to manage your risk? I'm not certain about this, but as I recall, from the old days, IBM never had the fastest anything, or they didn't seem to. Even if the 370's had the raw computing power of DEC or NCR, it always seemed to be lost in their software and networking (remember the gawd-awful VTAM/TSO?). For some reason, everyone seemed to buy IBM. I remember pushing for PC's throughout the 80's. We would say, why put up with that rotten m/f response time anymore, just get a PC. They are so.... much faster. Right, and the speed of having a fat-client terminal was about all you could say for it. This might sound strange, but I really don't think the PC has changed much since 1981. And the reasons for not using it in enterprise computing back then are still pretty much the same today. The only difference is the faster processors. They still have a crummy bus (though improved) with slowwww i/o and the same crummy bios written by college students working for IBM during the summer in 1980. I won't even go into the software..... Your point on the internet infrastructure is interesting. Does the DOJ settlement mean that no one else will be able to get their services to customers using desktop pc's EXCEPT for M$FT?? Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with C# or .NET, so I'm not sure what they compete with @Sun. Doesn't Sun have a head-start w/Java?